Saying Darwin's Evolution isn't perfect is like saying Newton's theory of gravity isn't perfect or the first theories of how geological processes work weren't perfect. Well.. of course they're not, they were the groundwork. They usually serve as pretty good approximations though even today and the details are figured out through later scientists with better tools and understanding.

I didn't read any of the other comments but I'ma just say I think while it's mostly evolution I think something else happened along the way.
Put on your tin foil hats beause this **** gets crazy. I didn't want to think about it when I first heard it but after awhile it just made more and more sense.

Evolution is a thing, everything on this planet evolved. But humans are not a product of evolution. Somewhere at sometime Aliens (stay with me now, I know it sounds stupid) did something with our DNA as monkeys (or homo whatever we were) and we then evolved from there.

There's a lot of proof to support this for example we have less chromosomes than monkeys. Like half as many. When you evolve you don't lose you gain. And theres a bunch of other things I can't think of but this is most likely what happened.

BUT evolution is still a thing and we do still evolve and get better with each generation. Humans are very very very slow at this because we usually mate for life or only with 3 people. (I mean kids not sex). Animals mate with whoever whenever as to spread DNA more and push the evolution snowball down the hill faster.

Anyway I'm prepared for a **** storm for this. As it does sound stupid. But then again so would the red pilling to a hillary supporter.

>When you evolve you don't lose you gain.
>get better with each generation
>Animals mate with whoever whenever

I appreciate you making an effort to explain your opinions and reasoning rather than just insulting people who disagree maybe apart from "But then again so would the red pilling to a hillary supporter." , but you're really misinterpreting some of the major concepts behind natural selection.

That is an misunderstanding of natural selection at its most fundamental level.

For one, we didn't evolve from any currently extant species of monkey, so that chromosomal "evidence" is meaningless, and two, species very much can and do lose chromosome numbers (as well as features and complexity) through evolution. (and even then chromosome number is pretty much in no way related to complexity in the first place)

Surely you realize evolutionary science has advanced heaps and bound in the 150-200 years since Darwin's time right? For me the reason science is more trustworthy than religion is because it changes according to what we discover is false, constantly being refined into more complete theories. Religion on the other hand is the supposed "absolute truth" and is never subject to change outside of arbitrary interpretation by the followers, despite virtually all testable claims being proven false from religious texts, especially those of the Abrahamic religions.

No, but the content didn't say anything about darwins theory either, so the obvious implication is that you're claiming that there's a sole dichotomy between creationism and natural selection exactly as darwin described it, which is utter nonsense.

It's like commenting "Newton's laws of gravitation weren't perfect either" on a flat earth post, or "Pasteur's germ theory wasn't perfect either" on one claiming that disease is spread by evil spirits.

Nothing in science is perfect lmao; for a theory in science to be perfect it would imply that we could possibly know what the truth really is. Science is all about proving things false, and those that withstand that test are simply accepted as correct for pragmatic purposes until proven false or proven false in part, hence being overturned by new discoveries.

Don't know why you're getting so many red thumbs. Darwinism is an extremely out dated view point of the evolution theory. In fact if anyone alive today takes the time to read his journals, while he is accurate in some of his studies, much of what he writes has no scientific backing in reality. And no, I have not read the thing in its entirety but I've read enough excerpts to know that his theory should be a baseline for the evolution theory, but it needs to be taken with a grain of salt. People need to remember that his book The Origin of Species was written in 1859 and is prone to errors of the time it was written.

I guess edgy atheists since they only know, or better said only care to know, darwinism and creationism
If you arent any darwinist you are automaticaly labeled a creationist. Not to mention that if you mention God you are seen as a southern baptist redneck.
Eh, even philosophers of biology have to start with "we arent creationists" if they want to discuss evolution. this is a phenomen where so called science stops progress to future scientific discoveries

There have been many theories of evolution put forward by various naturalists over the centuries, not just Darwinism. It's just that Darwin's theory of natural selection happened to be the one that is actually supported by pretty much all the available evidence, and has hence been developed and expanded upon as a theory right up to our current modern understanding of it.

For a long time Darwinian evolution and Lamarckian evolution (note - still not creationism) were both competing theories, then we kept on gathering evidence and the evidence happened to fit the former theory better.

>Edgy atheists
>Generalizing most people into stereotyping Christians as "southern baptist rednecks"
Most people have a faith of some kind. While these types of people that your talking about certainly exist they aren't by any means common place.
Just letting you know because that's why your getting the red thumbs.

I mean, we all yearn for the gods to be true because we all want to be in a "better place" once we're condemned.
But so far, all we can do is to be thankful to be this lucky.
However we still need to scour the great beyond.

Of course it wasn't perfect, he was writing almost two centuries ago. However he laid out the groundwork for the modern theory of natural selection which is about as close to perfect as it can be.

>Not mention that it ends with him saying that god created life

For one, the theories of evolution and natural selection have absolutely nothing to do with making any claims as to the origin of life, and two, Darwin was actually incredibly conflicted over the fact that many of his observations seemed to go directly against the teachings of his faith.

Not to mention the fact that the addition of the phrase you're referring to: "by the Creator" to the end of the line "There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed into a few forms or into one;" was an addendum only added in later editions of the book. It wasn't in the original publication.

I'm a Catholic Christian, yet also a scientist. To me it is just baffling that people don't think they can believe in evolution and divine creation. I viewscience and evolution as the tools which manifest the divine intent. It's pretty clear that evolution occurred, and I don't understand why creationists believe it matters so much that God created the earth and heavens as they are now. Is a carpenter any less skilled or his work less valuable because he uses hammers and saws to create an ornate desk, rather than forming it with his bare hands? Not meaning to rant, just my personal opinion.

The idea is that if you believe that God is allknowing and supremely good and that the bible is Gods word (I dont personally believe any of these 3), then therefore the contents of the bible are true entirely. It is not that evolution is in contradiction to the idea of divine creation, but it is in contradiction with the specific description of divine creation as reported in the bible.
As I understand, you dont believe in the creation story from the bible, so I'm curious as to why you think it is in there?

The bible should not be interpreted literally, it's the inspired word of God, not the literal word of God. Enlightened individuals wrote the bible, and they included stories to convey messages, and others just because in the ancient times they were looking for solutions to things they didn't understand. Some stories, such as the creation story, were created to convey that god created man and woman, and god created the earth, and that he loves all of his creation, even though man is imperfect. The creationist 7 days aspect was added in by the author as a way to understand something which they had no understanding. In the old days when these religions were founded, religion was often a substitute for science. In my opinion, creationism is thus an outdated view of Christianity, now that we have come to understand the world we live in more.

I guess most of what I'm saying is that even though god is omniscient and omnipotent, he doesn't exert his complete influence over anything, as free will is the most important thing we have. That includes the bible, which was written by flawed individuals who had some understanding, but not all understanding, of god.
Sorry for the wall of text.

I dont mind the text. I asked a complicated question so I would have been more discontent if you'd have answered in 2 sentences.

And I guess thats a reasonable explenation for that.
Follow-up question though, again out of curiosity:
If you dont think the bible is the literal word of God, do you still consider it a reliable source of information? Wouldnt it be reasonable to say that everything it states might be disproven in the future, besides perhaps the parts that are so obvious that you would have known them without the bible (murder is bad etc.)?
And if not the bible, what do you consider as a source of information regarding God?

Personally I am a more personal Catholic. There are parts of the bible which I take as truth, and that is the historical aspects, such as parts of the exodus, and the life of Jesus (the fact that he was a real man is hard to debate). The more fabular parts are the part I have conflict about, as these portions could be intended only to convey important messages. Some things are hard for me though, such as the resurrection, which I believed occurred in a sense, but whether body and soul or spirit of Jesus is something I do not specify.

As for the authority I believe in, I pretty much would only accept some sort of personal divine revelation as authority. I believe many priests and bishops are holy mean, and especially the pope, but I do not believe they speak for god in their entirety, as all men are flawed. For instance, if the pope were to condemn homosexuality as a sin, I would not accept it, as it conflicts with my personal view of what god would proclaim. This is a bad example as I believe the current pope is much more accepting than previous popes.

So do you believe the parts of the bible whicj you believe, BECAUSe they are in the bible or because they are (also) in other sources or because of personal revelation?
And more importantly, do you believe in God out of personal revelation?

Quite honestly most of what I believe has no reason for me to believe it, it's just what I have come to have faith in, which is probably why I'm open to other religions. Some things have a historical concept, and are easier to believe in then others, such as the exodus (minus the plagues and the more mystical events), other things I just believe in because it is what I have heard, and the lessons I have learned from it, and I have just come to have faith that it is a good thing. That's not all things though mind you.

honestly? it usually comes down to how the individual views the bible, i find that people who view the bible as a general way to live your life, instead of a literal tense are MUCH more open to things. However people that read the bible and take it literally (as most hardcore groups say you should) wont give a goddamn inch. i think the first option makes more sense if you think about it, if you believe god had people write the bible for him, it would make more sense to generalize (earth is only like 10k years old or whatever, because its much simpler for stupid people to understand) to groups of uneducated people.

but hey, this is just the two cents of someone whos generally nonreligious

Philosopher of science here. To me it's more baffling that a scientist can state any sort of intentionality is even remotely plausible when all our best empirical theories point to the contrary, to the point that they are willing to suspend reason enough to accept people rising from the death based on nothing more than a book.

I don't believe in the whole creation theory, just divine intent. Essentially I believe science can always tell you how something happens, but it never answers those existential questions that people turn to religion or philosophy for.

Burden of proof lies with you, there is no authority on this site aside from the Mods and Admin, unless you prove your identity.

I'm know researches and they rarely care about anything related to religion and will most certainly not involve it in their work. I know someone who removed himself from a study, because he thought that he would have a hard time remaining unbiased, after what he'd seen in the past (turned out that he was right all along, but I still applaud his professionalism).

I'm sorry I don't really understand why you are telling me the burden of proof lies with me? I am merely speaking as a fellow Catholic to a hypothetical creationist Catholic that I do not understand the fundamental belief that religion and science must be in conflict, rather than two perspectives of the same possible truth.besides, when debating such metaphysical concepts such as religion and ethics, proof and evidence are quite arbitrary. How can one ever prove or disprove the concept of a being which is supposedly omnipotent and omniscient, existing outside of the physical plane, using something derived in the physical plane as evidence. Just something that always bugged me, it's also why I think religious people trying to convince atheists of the existence of God, and atheists trying to deny the existence of God's is futile as well. Why does believing in your own beliefs have to mean you have to prove somebody else wrong.

sorry for the wall of text. I also aren't accusing you of anything, this just came to mind while I was writing my thoughts out.

I am currently etching low alloy titanium nitrogen allowed steels that were forged 50 percent at 900 to 1100 centigrade temperature to nuclear strain free grains at a smaller grain size. This helps to nuclear smaller grain sizes when the lower temperature transformations from the austenitic phase, allowing further extents of hall perch strengthening to be achieved. The etching I am using is a distilled water saturated with picric acid powder, with hydrochloric acid and sodium dodecylbenzenesulfonate powder. This will etch the austenitic grain boundaries, to which the tramp elements have segregated before the lower temperature transformations.

Is this to your satisfaction? Or shall I include pictures with a timestamp??

I frown trying to push an agenda, by using obvious lies. It makes you and everyone involved with you look bad.

I'm probably one of the few Christians (below 50) in Denmark that regularly goes to church and fag makes me ashamed of two major aspects of my life. Professionalism on the job and the religious community.

That's how a traditional lab equipment is supposed to look, don't clean it unless you want people to think that there was something really dangerous spilled on it.
It adds to the flair when you don't know if the next drop of your solution that falls onto the equipment is gonna create NHCl, because some dumbass dripped something onto it and didn't clean it.
I all seriousness, I've never vomited as hard in my life (for seemingly no reason) and having to file a report, trying to figure out what actually happened was pretty weird.
Thanks for cleaning your stuff, very few people actually think that far.

The etching reveals the prior austenite grain boundaries, which show how effective the deformations are. The smaller the grain size and the better the recrystallizstion of the grains, the more nucleation sites are available for the final structure. This means we can get a smaller grain size, which if you recall hall perch gives us a better strength and toughness.

I'm a grad student, sorry for getting heated, I just got mad when you called me out. That's not a steel rod in there that's a glass stirring rod, I have to keep the acid moving during the experiment. The acid is only used to etch the steel so we can look at it, it's not actually used to make the steel. I'll tell you about it if you want, though some stuff is proprietary and I'm not allowed to talk about it.

I'd like to hear about it, but I'm probably gonna need to sober up, before actually grasping it.
I had Chem 1 and 2 on UNI and some basic metallurgy, so I think that you can just Tl;dr or link me to a similar study and explain the differences.

Wait, I just realized that you're etching something, as in etching a circuit board. Which probably excludes the importance of tensile strength

Deformation structures under a microscope were always fun to watch.
Have you tried heating forging steel (0.80%, I think) to different temperatures between 800 - 1100 Celsius and then putting a sample into the electron microscope. That **** was cool.

>so I'm guessing either an engineer or a physicist?
Little ashamed, but I changed to engineer, might continue with chemistry. Now that I've got a stable job, with enough time to ******** instead of studying.

The SEM is always fun to breakout to prove something. Nothing's better than magnifying some tens of thousands of times just to prove some tiny detail.
I've never worked with any .8% as it's usually quite brittle and welds terribly, but I've worked with .4 and my current steels are low alloy so about .1, means I'm usually stuck looking at a lot of ferrite, especially since my deformations decrease hardenability.

Nothing wrong with engineering my dude, sure it's less prestigious, but it's a much better job market. Plus you can usually fill up your electives with physics or chem classes. My degree was MSE (materials science and engineering, basically a physics, chem and engr bastard child) but I filled up pretty much every elective I could with physics or chem. Some of my favorite classes were electrical properties and the circuits class. My one professor helped me to build a circuit board from basic components that played a game of pong on a grid of leds and a microchip. Man that was the ****, such a cool class, and actually getting to see how that stuff worked.

>fill up your electives
In Denmark with have to take all related classes until we have a bachelor, then we can pick a specialization (with predetermined classes).
It's because we get some funding from the government (SU) and electives would open up loopholes in the system.
We even have to take some social science classes, because they're afraid that our morals might not be in the right place. Outrageous I say!
*Finishes inserting the lithium into the homemade hydrogen bomb*

>My one professor helped me to build a circuit board from basic components that played a game of pong on a grid of leds and a microchip. Man that was the ****, such a cool class, and actually getting to see how that stuff worked.

Yeah, that field was my third pick. Not bad at all, but some of the physics didn't really make sense to me back then (they do now). So I obviously went with the most confusing field, that also included quantum mechanics (not why I changed, I somewhat got the hang of it).
Sometimes I want to kick younger me in the nutsack... I'm still not married and sitting at home and drinking alone on a Friday night.

Just keep at it my dude, I don't know if it's the same in dwnmark, but you can usually do a professional grad school at night, though that won't qualify you to do a phd, but that's a lot of school anyways. If you like the chemistry and such I vote you should give it another try, it's always more fun if you are interested in learning about a subject.

As for the drinking thing, maybe go hit up the bar with one of your friends if they can, it never hurts to ask em. Who knows, maybe you'll find that woman out there.

Replying here cause chain is too long. I get ya man, all that's really important is you doing you. If you don't like going out to bars like that, perhaps just sit tight and something good sill come your way, just trust it.

No need, In Denmark I just go to UNI and start from where I left off (in chemistry), but I'll probably read all related materiel first, because I already have a nice job and this'll basically just be for fun and because I don't like unfinished business.

I don't want to pick up a girl at a bar, because I'm looking for a partner for marriage and not a Thot (as the young people put it).
Also, picking up a drunk girl is the best way for a well-off dude to get some random rape charges.